Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEAM TRAWLERS (BRITISH COAL).

Mr. GROTRIAN: 2.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he can now relax the restrictions in regard to coal for steam trawlers and allow them to buy more British coal?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): For the past fortnight fishing vessels have been allowed to buy British coal up to 25 per cent. of their normal requirements, and since last Tuesday they have been authorised to get the rest of their requirements from British pits, provided that they buy in Scotland or South Wales. The restrictions have, therefore, already been greatly relaxed, and I will remove them altogether as soon as the position may justify it.

Commander WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to expedite the releasing of these stocks of coal, as they are most important at this time in connection with the food supplies of the people?

Colonel LANE FOX: I cannot go any further than the answer at present.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (NO. 2) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported. without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is of a kind and in a form which has been made familiar by the Oxford and Cambridge Measure. It is a Bill to appoint statutory Commissioners to draw up statutes for the University of London in general accordance with the Report of a Departmental Committee which was appointed by my predecessor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) and was first presided over by Lord Ernle and later by my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Young). I wish to express my thanks to that Committee and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich for all the work that they did and for their excellent report. The Bill, as I have said, follows the lines of the Oxford and Cambridge Measure. It appoints statutory Commissioners to draw up statutes. These statutes are subject to the approval of the Privy Council in the first instance and, in the second instance, they have to be laid before both Houses of Parliament and either House may formulate objections to them in the usual way. The reason for the Bill is a simple one. It will be found set forth very clearly in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Report of the Departmental Committee and with the permission of the House I will read an extract from those paragraphs:
Apart from the funds legally transferred and accruing to the university from time to time in respect of the incorporation of University and King's Colleges—which funds, it may he noted, are not in practice at. the free disposal of the university—
and apart from other similar funds mostly earmarked for special purposes or institutions before the university receives them, it is fair to say that the university has practically no financial resources which it can devote to the development of teaching or research except the balance of examination fees. And yet the total income for the year 1923–24 of the 22 schools of the university in receipt of grants from the Treasury, including the incorporated colleges, amounted to nearly £1,000,000 of which about £360,000 represented recurrent grants from the University Grants Committee and about £70,000 aid from the London County Council. The aid from the University Grants Committee consists of direct grants made without consultation with the Senate and the aid given by the London County Council to individual colleges, except the Imperial College, is in the form of direct grants for special purposes, applications in respect of which have to be made, however, through the Senate.
The Committee go on to define the object of their recommendations.
We hope to enable the University Grants Committee, the London County Council and other present and prospective grant-giving bodies to deal with a central university body as to the needs of the university and its colleges and to make block grants to the university on the basis of such needs. It is fundamentally inconsistent with the idea of a self-governing university that it should not have sufficient financial resources and authority to initiate and pursue a policy of well-balanced development and to prevent wasteful duplication and competition.
That last sentence is so obviously true that I do not think it is necessary to argue it. The reason for the Bill is this. While all are agreed that the present financial impotence of the University of London, alone among all the universities of the country, is an undesirable thing, yet at the same time, so far as I know, there is no section of opinion in the University of London, there is no one connected with it in any way prepared to accept the present supreme governing body of the university—the Senate as at present constituted—as the authority for allocating grants from public grant-giving bodies. That is the reason and the necessity for the Bill, but I should like to lay great emphasis on this: the University of London is a great institution peculiarly English in its character. It has grown, as English-men like institutions to grow, on no fixed lines, developing to meet national needs as they arise without any preconceived principle of organisation, and that character of the university, these inherited characteristics ought to be pre-
served, and there should be no question of standardising the University of London according to preconceived ideas or analogies with other universities. The object of this Bill is therefore to preserve the essential characteristics of the university, and, in consequence, the Departmental Committee, broadly speaking, limited its main recommendations to two things. In the first place it proposed so to modify the present constitution of the Senate as to give representation on the Senate to the constituent schools of the university who, with the exception of King's College and University College, have no representation as such on the governing body of the university. It will, I think, be agreed on all hands that that is a desirable thing to do. I use a word like "federal" with some hesitation, but it is obvious that when you have a university which is essentially composite in its character like the University of London, representation of the schools of the university as such on the central governing body is desirable. The second proposal of the Committee was the establishment of a new Finance Council to deal with all questions of finance.
I would draw the attention of the House to this fact: that the Committee were careful in making their proposals in the first place not to affect or diminish in any way the existing representation of the body of graduates and the Faculties on the Senate. That representation is left untouched. In the second place, in regard to the Finance Council, the Committee were careful to ensure that the Senate should have an effective majority on the Council in such a manner that, if the Senate is unanimous on any subject of university policy, be it academic or financial, that policy of the Senate can prevail and will prevail on the Council. That is the intention of the Committee and of the Government, and, so far as I can see, the proposals of the Committee carry that out.
Having made these introductory remarks, I think it would probably be in accordance with the wishes of the House, rather than going through the Bill Clause by Clause—it is a Bill of a perfectly well understood form in university legislation— I deal with certain points of criticism which have been made
in the last few months since the Departmental Committee's Report was published, and I hope to be able to give assurances which will clear up most of these points of criticism.
In the first place, may I deal with a class of criticism which arises from a total misunderstanding? It is said that the Board of Education has hitherto had nothing to do with universities, and that this is a means of establishing Board of Education control over the University of London. I want to say at the outset that the Board of Education has nothing to do with this Bill, it will have nothing to do with the University Statutes, and it will have nothing to do with the University of London administration after the Statutes are passed. I stand here according to the well-known Parliamentary practice that the President of the Board of Education, in his personal capacity, is responsible for the introduction of University Bills in the House of Commons, and the fact that the Departmental Committee was appointed by the President of the Board of Education arose from the fact that it was agreed that it was preferable to proceed by Departmental Committee rather than by way of Royal Commission, and a Departmental Committee has to be appointed by a Departmental Minister. But it is well understood that the relations between the Government and the universities of this country should be solely and entirety in the hands of the Privy Council, and that will be the position under this Bill.
The second criticism, and one which is based upon questions of principle, relates to the number of appointees of the Crown and of local authorities on the proposed new Finance Council. At the present moment the Crown appoints four representatives on the Senate, and the London County Council appoints two. That makes six representatives in a total Senate of 56. It is proposed that the Crown and the London County Council should no longer be represented on the Senate, but that those six members should be transferred to the Council, a Council of 16 members, of which six will be appointed by the Crown and by the London Country Council. It is objected to that it principle that the Crown and public authorities should not, in exchange for their grant, exercise any control over university policy. With that principle warmly agree, and I think it becomes more
important as the State comes to the exercise of wider and wider functions in all education below the university stage. I think my hon. Friends who have raised this point with me privately are thoroughly justified in being very anxious that there should not be introduced a precedent for Crown representation being used for purposes of control. Therefore, I should like to explain to the House the reason for this Crown representation.
The reason for the Bill, as 1 have said, is this, that practically the whole finance at the present moment of the University of London—so large a part of the finance as to be a controlling element—is in the hands of no university body and no college body. It is in the hands of the University Grants Committee, a purely departmental and, if you like, bureau-cratic, organisation, and the reason for this Bill is to get rid of that undesirable control, which is recognised to be undesirable, by the University Grants Committee and to be able to hand over the allocation of Government money to a university body. It is perfectly well understood in the constitution of every university in this country that it is desirable that the financial administration of universities should be carried out very largely with the assistance of elements outside the university, competent in matters of business administration and finance, and on the constitution or governing body of every university in this country you will find, especially if you take the provincial universities, local business men taking the main part in the finance of the university. London is a peculiar place. Its metropolitan character makes it far more difficult to get a natural local business element on to the council of the university than it is in the case of a great industrial town with strong local feeling like Leeds, and the sole object of Crown representation — and I want to give the most emphatic assurance on this pointߞis not to retain any control for the Government over the allocation of grants, but to get in the most efficient way possible the most eminent men that you can to supply that outside, independent element.
After all, we have got some right to point to the character of Crown representatives on universities at the present moment. I do not think there is any Member in this House who can give a single instance of a Crown
nominee on the governing body of any university having ever been used by the Crown to express or to secure the views of the Government. Who are our representatives on the Senate at the present moment? Sir William Beveridge, the head of the London School of Economics, and Vice Chancellor of the University, at the present moment, is one, and, if I may say so, I do not think anyone will accuse him of subservience to the Government, and 1 could continue the list. There is not a single Crown representative, either on the Senate or on the Imperial College of Science or on any university in this country, who can be regarded as in any sense an official nominee. if I may give one other instance, take the Crown members on the Court of the University of Manchester—Lord Arnold, Sir Edward Donner, the Bishop of Liverpool, the Archbishop of York, and Lord Rochdale. That is the sole object of Crown representation on the Council, and if anyone can suggest to me any way in which that independent representation can better be secured, given the peculiar conditions of London, I shall be very glad to consider it. The Departmental Committee gave very long consideration to this subject, and I believe they are substantially correct in their recommendation.
A third criticism relates to the elimination of what is commonly known as the nominated third on the Senate. As I have said, it is not proposed to touch the representation of the faculties or the body of graduates on the Senate. At the present moment the remainder of the Senate is composed very largely of members nominated by miscellaneous bodies. I do not want to deny, and I should be the first to recognise, that that nominated third, which does supply in a kind of way an outside element, has done excellent work in the past, and is capable of doing excellent work. This elimination is really due to the hard facts of the case. If it be true that you should not interfere with the representation of the graduates or die faculties on the Governing Body and on the Senate, and if it be true that you should in the University of London secure some organic representation to the schools of the university as such, you cannot include this miscellaneous element in the Senate without making it so large a body as to be absolutely unworkable.
The reason for the constitution of the Senate on these lines was partly the reason I have given for outside elements, but it is only by chance that the nominated third does represent an outside independent element. It is constituted, for instance, of representatives of the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Medicine. At the present moment there is no representation of the medical schools at all, but the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Medicine are there at the present moment far more as representatives of the medical schools of the University than as representing outsiders. The same is true of the Incorporated Law Society and the Inns of Court, who, between them, have six representatives, and those six representatives. were put on quite definitely and explicitly with the idea that there might in the future be some organic connection between the Inns of Court and the University in the direction of building up a great University of London law school. [An HON. MEMBER: "That has not eventuated."] That has not eventuated, and I think my hon. and learned Friends will agree that it is not likely to eventuate.
Finally, the City and Guilds Institute is also represented, but they are now there far more as representing the Imperial College of Science than any general body of business opinion or interest. Therefore, the answer to that criticism is that the elimination of the nominated third is not proposed, because we do not recognise their services. It is proposed because you cannot get any proper organic representation of schools of universities without eliminating some element in the existing Senate, and, moreover, the function of this nominated third and most of the bodies now nominating, will be better secured, in fact, by getting organic representation of the different schools on the Senate, and leaving the outside element—to which I and the hon. Member for the University of London (Dr. Little) attach great importance—to the Council.
The fourth criticism is this. There has been some apprehension that, arising out of the wording of Clause 4, there might be some idea of interfering fundamentally with the constitution of existing
schools of the university, and that fear has been specially expressed by the theological colleges, who are in this special position, that they do not receive any grant either from the university or from the University Grants Committee, and they arc, obviously also, in view of the nature of the constitution of the University of London, in a somewhat peculiar position. But I have given assurance to the theological colleges that I am quite prepared to consider their case upstairs, and to move an Amendment which should meet their view, and I hope to be able to move an Amendment upstairs which will put an end to the fear, not only of the theological colleges, but of any other schools of the university, in that respect.
A fifth criticism is one of which, I think, we shall hear a good deal more upstairs. It is roughly this: What is going to happen if the new Senate, which is to have control over academic policy, and the new council which is to have final financial authority, disagree on any important matter of policy? That question is not dealt with in the Report of the Departmental Committee, A Report, which was signed by my hon. Friend opposite, proposes, as I understand it. that the council should become a mere committee of the Senate, and then there would be no question of disagreement, as the Senate would entirely control the policy. That solution would defeat the object we have in view of having a council to which public money could be handed over for allocation. But the other question of devising expedients for resolving differences in any important matter of policy between the council and the Senate is a matter which I am perfectly prepared to consider, and which, in any case, the Statutory Commission would have to consider, and which, I think, the Statutory Commission are the best body to solve. I am perfectly sure that that difficulty is not a major one, and the Statutory Commission will be able to devise a satisfactory solution.
Finally, the last criticism is the one which we hear most about—the question of the so-called danger to the external degrees. This is a line of criticism which, I confess, I have always found very difficult to understand. For observe what the situation is. The Statutory Commission will have to draw up Statutes
in general accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. One of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee is that nothing should be done to prejudice the position of the external students or the position of external degrees. That is as much a direction to the Statutory Commission as anything else in the Committee's Report. Again, the external student is not affected by the financial proposals. As a matter of fact, for the moment, the external side of the University does not even get financed from the University to the extent of the balance of its own examination fees, and it receives no grant from public money.

Dr. LITTLE: May I correct that statement? The grants of the University are not earmarked for the external side in the way suggested. I do not quite follow the statement.

Lord E. PERCY: I think the hon. Member misunderstood me. What I said was that, if you reckoned the amount of money spent by the University on the external side, it would prove to be less than the amount of the University profits on the external examination fees. That may or may not be right, but that is what I said.

Dr. LITTLE: That is not in any way a correct description of our finance. The revenue earned by examination fees of external students are not in any sense earmarked for external use, but go into the general funds of the University.

Lord E. PERCY: I did not say they were earmarked. Therefore, I do not see how the external side can possibly be prejudiced financially. On the contrary I believe the external side will benefit substantially in its finances, for it is, and must remain, an essential side of the University, and any measure which gives the central governing body of the University greater financial independence and greater power of working out a satisfactory University policy must benefit every side of the University. Therefore I cannot see where the external side is prejudiced. I think the sole argument which is urged against this from the external side comes back to the case of the nominated third on the Senate. It is stated that the nominated third at the present moment is rather favourably disposed to the external side, but the new
proposals for representation which are to be substituted for the nominated third may not be so favourable. I can only say that, so far as 1 know, there is no foundation for the suggestion that the schools of the University are not favourable to the external side, and certainly it seems to me illogical to urge that outside element which now exists on the Senate, and which is favourable to the external side, will become by some strange transformation unfavourable in some sinister way when it has been transferred to the Council where it will have greater powers.

Dr. LITTLE: The composition of the nominated third which will be represented on the Council is entirely different to the composition of the nominated third on the present Senate, only one section of the nominated third, i.e., representative of the Crown and of the London County Council, will be retained on the Council—a section never particularly favourable in the past to external interests.

Lord E. PERCY: I have already dealt with the question of the composition of the nominated third, and I do not think my hon. Friend is going to allege that the present Crown members are any less favourable to the external side than anybody else. I would like to point out that most of these arguments about the external side are not by any means universally urged by external students. I have had representations very much in the opposite sense from large bodies of external students. But where those arguments are urged I am afraid they come down to the argument that the external side is going to be prejudiced by anything which makes the governing body of the Senate a more vigorous body. I hope that no representative of the external side is ever going to identify himself with that very dangerous argument. The Government desire to preserve the external side in the full enjoyment of its privileges. They see nothing in the present proposals which affect those privileges, and I am convinced that no argument has been used which will indicate even remotely that the external students can be prejudiced.
One final word. It has been one of the great glories of the external side that it has been a pioneer in the effort to make London in a very real sense an Imperial
University, and that is the position which London must increasingly occupy. The demand for university education in this country from all our Dominions is growing every year. Oxford and Cambridge clearly cannot satisfy it. The University of London is clearly marked out as the University that can satisfy it, and proposals of this kind are absolutely necessary if the University is to develop in order to satisfy that demand. And I hope that no one representing the external side, one of whose glories is that it has started this movement towards an Imperial status for the University of London, will hesitate to assist the development of London, so that it shall be able to take in the future that place which it ought to take in Imperial education.
I hope my hon. Friend the Member for the University of London will not think I am usurping his functions if I say one word as to what I believe to be the present position of opinion in the University of London. There is a great difference of opinion on many of the details, and there is a section which is opposed to the report in general, though it is a small section. But I have had representations from all those sections recently saying that, whatever may or may not have been their objection, the one thing that is necessary is to get this Bill passed and the Statutory Commission set up now, because the prevailing uncertainty is clearly prejudicing very important current University matters. Therefore I hope the House will be able to give the Government the Second Reading, and the Committee stage of the Money Resolution, to-day, and be content to deal with details, which I am prepared to discuss fully, in Committee upstairs.

Mr. THURTLE: On a point of privilege. I understand this Bill has come down to us from another place, and I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether in voting for the Second Reading of the Bill to-day we are going to vote for the Bill as a whole, that is to say, for all the Clauses enumerated. I refer in particular to Clause 2, which involves' a certain charge upon the revenue of the country.

Mr. SPEAKER: Clause 2 is not in the Bill.

Mr. THURTLE: It is included in the Clauses stated on the outside of the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: But the other House, to avoid any question of privilege, has not passed that Clause—it would be beyond its powers. It will have to be inserted by this House. That is the usual form on financial matters.

Mr. TREVELYAN: I rise at once to express the wish of the Labour party that this Bill may receive a Second Reading to-day, and that after due consideration in Committee it will become law this year. As the Minister has said, I was responsible for the appointment of the Committee on whose Report the action of the Statutory Commission is to be founded. I do not profess to have any intimate knowledge of the problems of London University, but I found a nearly universal anxiety for the establishment' of a really business like governing body of the university: and I found equally at that time an almost universal feeling that some recommendations of the Haldane Commission, which reported prior to the War, required revision. I think the House should be grateful for the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Young) and his colleagues accomplished their task. I do not want to dwell to-day upon any questions of detail. There appears to me to be only two points of major detail to be thrashed out in Committee. Unquestionably the most important is that which relates to the position of the external side of the university. I was very much impressed myself with the fears in regard to the future of the external side excited by the Haldane Report. I hope it will prove as the discussion goes on that the external interests have been very fully safeguarded under the present, proposals, and I am certain that no one. who reads pages 7 to 10 of the Report of the Commission can doubt that those interests are at any rate intended to be thoroughly safeguarded by the Committee. Of course it will be a matter for discussion in Committee of this House whether their intention to safeguard those interests has been properly fulfilled. That, I maintain, although important, is really a Committee point.
The other question of importance, though still a matter of detail, is the exact relation of the proposed Council to the proposed new Senate. It is proposed by the Departmental Committee that the
council shall have final financial authority. As is pointed out, the council is not a body entirely representative of the university. I confess that, although I have an open mind on the subject, I am disposed to take the view of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), who has a minority recommendation on the subject, that there seems to be rather an inversion of authority. I sympathise very strongly indeed with those who are constantly expressing fear and antipathy against outside interference with the government of the university, and I think there is a great deal to be said for the Senate, which is the full representative body having the final financial control. Important as that matter is, obviously it is a Committee point, and I may say that the hon. Member for Keighley strongly holds the opinion that the Senate should: be the final deciding body, and he also holds the view that this point ought to be decided in Committee, although he is anxious to see the Second Reading of the Bill adopted to-day.
I am not quite certain that we could not come to an understanding on the lines of what the President of the Board of Education has said to-day. I am sure that the best solution is to leave this question to the Statutory Committee, to decide exactly where this power should lie. At any rate, let us settle that point during the Committee stage. It appears to me that on the Second Reading we have only to decide the question of whether this House ought not to insist on the solution of the undoubtedly difficult and intricate task of creating a harmonious machinery for governing this great university. The component authorities of this university are very numerous and in some respects incongruous, apart from the primary distinction between the external and the internal sides of the university. There are no less than 44 different authorities involved in the university. This diversity in characters is one which presents itself in no other university that exists in our island, and in no university of which I have ever heard. This makes the problem a very difficult one. I suggest to the House that it will have been a remarkable and a peculiarly British accomplishment in the. government of this great institution if
we can now, by the process we propose, erect it on a solid and enduring foundation.

Mr. WITHERS:: As the representative of Cambridge University it may be considered a little out of place for me to interfere in matters affecting the sister university. There is, however, one question of principle which I must criticise in this proposal, and that is the direct appointment by the Crown of four representatives on the council of the university, which is to have full financial control. I have always understood that there was a very distinct rule as to the rights of the Government in making grants to universities, and I think they may be briefly stated as follow: firstly, that the Government have every right to grant or refuse to grant, as they wish; secondly, they have every right to see to the details of the expenditure; and, thirdly, they have no right to interfere in the actual spending of the money. This rule was very clearly emphasised at the meeting of the Congress of the Universities of the Empire held recently, and I think the proposal contained here and recommended by the Departmental Committee is a violation of that principle.
I feel it my duty to draw attention to this point at this stage of the Bill. I have had the pleasure of some private conversations with the President of the Board of Education on this subject, and I quite appreciate that he understands the position of the older universities. As the right hon. Gentleman has indicated to me that this matter will be considered, and that some Amendment will be brought forward in another place in order that my point may be dealt with, I offer no further objection, and if this promise is carried out we shall be very pleased to support the Bill. If it is not carried out, of course we shall reserve our right to oppose this Measure in Committee and on Report.

Dr. LITTLE: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."
Before coming to the actual matter of the Bill, may I be permitted to make a little personal explanation of the attitude which I am obliged to take upon
this occasion. The reason I am taking this course to-day is because of the attitude which I took up in 1924 at the General Election, when this issue was placed before the electors. The reason why I was elected was because I took up the general standpoint of opposition to the reconstitution of the University upon the lines of the Haldane Report. The late Minister for Education has reported his own sense of the general opposition expressed in the University to the Haldane Report. Another explanation I must offer is that I am in a very difficult position because the University of London has always been the poor man's university. If this were a matter of the two ancient foundations there are any number of the Members of this House who would know all about it, and would rise up in their defence. But I question whether more than 20 hon. Members of the House are graduates of the University of London, and ignorance of the University is the difficulty which anyone speaking about the London University has to meet.
Again, I must ask the indulgence of the House if I have to make a long statement, because I feel that I ought to give some kind of account of the University which is so unfamiliar to this audience. The University started as an examining body, and in that capacity it did very signal service to education in this country. It raised the standard of education throughout the country; it laid down the principle of equality in the matter of creed and sex; and very effectively it protected the position of the poor student who is able to take degrees in the University of London in a way which is possible in no other university in the country.
I would ask leave to give two or three examples of what happened under that system. Sixty years ago, a young man broke his leg and lost his father in the same year. He was training to be a medical student, and was unable to complete his training. He had to earn his living, and he obtained a position in a primary school, with a very indulgent headmaster. The headmaster urged him to take the London University degree. That young man for six years passed a life of extraordinary self-denial and industry, and at the end of those six years
he obtained two degrees. Upon the completion of that course, he was elected by the Council of King's College to become a member of the staff of that college, and he has taught there for nearly 50 years. His retirement from the staff was recently celebrated by a dinner at which I was present, and at which the affection of the whole college was expressed for him. Take another instance from the same college. A member of that college, who is now a professor of European reputation, started life as a dispensing chemist, and he owes his chance in life to an external degree. Let me give a third instance. A commercial traveller found that he could read in the train on his way to business. He obtained books; be read and took a degree in the University of London. That man is now a leader of industry, with an income of £10,000 a year.
I want to explain that the present constitution of the University dates back only to 1898. In that year an attempt was made to incorporate with the old examining body the teaching institutions in London. A number of schools were brought into the ambit of the University in a very remarkable way. It is a federation of schools, autonomous schools, enjoying great liberty and largely independent financially. Those schools now constitute what is known as the internal side of the University, but the ancient duty of the examining board, which was to keep the examinations of the University open to all corners, has been jealously maintained, and the constitution of 1898 is known as the constitution of a dual University. It may be asked why a constitution imposed upon a university so recently as 1898 should be recast at this time. It is necessary to explain that all this trouble has arisen from an attempt, in the year 1909, on the part of the Senate to gather into its fold a college of the University which had remained outside, namely, the Imperial College of Science and Technology. The Commission which was asked to investigate that matter proposed a solution which was so ridiculous that the Imperial College would have none of it. The Commission proceeded, not to satisfy the request of the Senate, but to create an entirely new reference.
12.0 N.
The Report of 1913 aimed at three objects. The first was to reduce the
University to what was considered manageable limits on the lines of the provincial universities with which alone the Commissioners were familiar. A second object was to obtain financial control of the colleges, and the third object was to extinguish all facilities for external and Imperial examinations. A very prominent feature of the Haldane Report was the introduction of exactly the same principle as now forms part of the Departmental Committee, Report, namely, an increase of the representation of the Crown and of the municipalities to just four times that which now prevails upon the present governing body. That principle forms part of the Haldane Report and part of the present Report of the Departmental Committee. The Haldane Report had been received everywhere with hostility, and I beg to correct a statement made by the President of the Board of Education that there is not a widespread—I say a very widespread—feeling in the University against the constitution now proposed. I have stated the feeling which is present among my own constituents, because, of course, I represent the graduates, and not the governing body. I do not think the feeling among the graduates can be contested. The feeling of the University as a corporate body has been expressed as strongly as a corporate body can do so. The Senate and Convocation have both recorded their objection to the reconstitution proposed by this Report. It was obvious in 1924 that there was not a single candidate who cared to contest that election as a supporter of the Haldane Report. I beg to submit that the Departmental Committee Report is essentially the same as the Haldane Report in that increase of outside representation to which we object and the supersession of the Senate as at present constituted by the Finance Council, which must be supreme.
I am not peculiar in the feeling that that is the effect of this reconstitution. I would like to quote a letter which appeared in the "Times" of the 17th November, from the Bishop of Gloucester. The Bishop of Gloucester, a former Principal of King's College, was Regius Professor of Theology at Oxford, and he was for many years a member of the Senate of the University. He writes:
The control of the university is largely to be in the hands of outside members and
to be taken away from the representative body. Those who desire the independence and self-government of the universities must feel that this is a most retrograde step.… regulations are to be introduced by which the Senate may require the revision of the constitution, governing body and statutes of a school of the university, and may interfere with the appeals issued by them, so that no.… school will be able to appeal for money without the consent of the Council of the University, and will be obliged to consult the university before accepting benefactions. The university also may claim to appoint principal teachers in the schools. …The object of the Report and Bill is to give the Senate control over existing schools. If these regulations are given statutory authority the theological colleges will probably cease to exist as schools of the university.
I want to crystallise the objections which we feel to this Bill under three headings. The first is in regard to the retention of the independence of the schools of the University. It is quite probable that no Member of the House here is familiar with the schools of the University. There are 44 of them. Some are as large as and larger than many of the provincial universities, individual schools having over 3,000 students attending their classes. The Faculty of Medicine, of which I know most, has Between 3,000 and 4,000 students. There are 10,000 internal students at the present moment in the colleges of the University, and the body of graduates is well over 14,000, exceeding in size the body of the electorate of Oxford, and not very far behind the electorate of Cambridge, although, very unfairly, they send only one Member to this house.
With regard to the schools, I should like to say why we are urging the rejection of this Bill. We feel that no Amendment can alter the inherently pernicious character of the Bill. It is an attempt, in my eyes, to wreck the independence of the schools, the independence of the University, and the independence of the students, and no Amendment can avoid those disasters. Let me take the case of the schools. The schools are at the present moment extremely strong institutions. They have traditions of very many years, sometimes even of centuries, behind them. They are very largely independent financially, and many of the schools would prefer to renounce grants rather than receive them if that independence is to be taken away from them with any
measure of completeness. It seems to me that a very apposite parallel can be drawn between the federal position of the schools of the University and the position of the Colonies in the British Empire. I speak as a Colonial myself, and I feel glad and proud to think that my University really is in a way a microcosm of the British Empire.
Suppose that anyone in this House were foolish enough to dictate to the Dominions overseas in any sort of way approaching that measure of dictation stated in Dr. Headlam's letter. It used to be a Roman maxim that "divide et impera" was the way to obtain an Empire, but I think we have learned a better way than that, and would now say, "impera et divide." If you try to exercise autocratic rule, you will certainly split both the Empire and the University. The colleges have already raised a warning note. The theological colleges, through the Bishop of Gloucester, who knows them, of course, extremely well, roundly say that they will not remain in the University if these regulations controlling their freedom are enforced. I speak more particularly for the medical schools, who would, I am convinced, follow the theological colleges' example. I have been a student of four of the great schools of medicine in London, and a member of the staff of one of them for 24 years. and I think I know the feeling of the medical schools as well as the Bishop of Gloucester knows the feeling of the theological colleges.
Let me just give one or two illustrations of the spirit of the medical schools A certain medical school refused to take the grant from the Board of Education, and it has refused to take that grant for many years. I asked the President of that school—of which I was myself a student— some years ago, "Why have you refused the grant?" He looked at me with a merry twinkle, and said, "You are a South African, and you ought to know." I did not quite see the connection of that with my question, and then he said, "This school has a very large and valuable connection among Colonial students. You know that we take no black students at this school. If we took black students, should we get your South Africans?"—and I said, "No, you
would not." He said, "That is why we have refused the grant." That did not appear in any prospectus of the school, but it was very real fact. There is another medical school which a few years ago was threatened by the Treasury Grants Committee with a cessation of the grant unless it consented to become a special school of medicine, instead of remaining a general school. The school had been a school of medicine for more than 100 years. The two Hunters, John and William, taught at it, and it had a very famous history behind it. That school said. "We will not modify our character: we shall continue to be a general school, and your grant can go and hang." It worked out its own salvation and became able to support itself, and. when it had achieved that consummation, the Treasury Grants Committee thought better of the matter and gave it the grant.
It is that sort of spirit which exists now, and I beg the House to take note of it, and have regard to what may happen. A university which is the largest in the world is likely to be put in such a- position that its component schools, which form its glory, will depart from it. Is that the desire of anyone in this House? The independence of the schools is of vital importance. That independence is very seriously threatened by these proposals, and the existence of the University as a university is in grave danger. Let me refer in the second second place to the remarks which have been made about the conduct of external examinations, and the safeguard which is supposed to be present in this Bill for their retention. I have sketched in a brief way the case of students who come into the external side. The external student, it is contended, is not any longer a very necessary quantity. It is supposed that the new universities throughout the country supply all the needs of students, and that the external student must incontinently die. History does not give any support to that contention, but it was a contention freely expressed in the Haldane Report. Since that Report was published, the number of external students in the University has doubled. It must be explained that the retention of the external side is the condition of existence of the Imperial examinations.
The Imperial link can only be kept intact by keeping intact the external side. The value of that link was very eloquently alluded to by a professor coming from an Australian university at the Congress of the Empire at Cambridge last summer. He said he regretted very much that the external Imperial examination of the University of London could not be made the standard for all the overseas colleges. What is the safeguard that is proposed in the Departmental Committee Report? I must again emphasise the very obvious fact that the Departmental Committee Report is the lineal descendant of the Haldane Commission Report. It is the same offspring, and in the Haldane Commission Report the Statutory representation upon the governing body of what are known as external interests was reduced from a third, which it is at present on the governing body of the University, to a fifteenth.
Is it really said in the House of Commons that representation does not matter, that everything will go just the same even if you have not got representation on the governing body. That is a very odd view to express in a representative legislative assembly. The universal experience of the past has been that the retention of the external degree, and the maintenance of external activities has been due in the first instance to the representation which those interests have upon the present Senate. It has been again said by the President of the Board of Education that he cannot understand why the external side should feel more threatened by the new composition of the Senate and the governing body than it has been in the past. I can tell him that at once. It is because we have had experience, and he has not. We know our people and he does not. Every representative of external interests on the present Senate is unanimously of that opinion. Those are the experts, and surely the opinion of experts who have a long, intimate, familiar acquaintance with the problem is to be preferred to the evidence of the President, who has no first-hand knowledge of the University at all. We see the representation of these bodies which have been friendly to our particular external interests carefully removed from the Senate. The representation to which I refer more especially is the legal representation. There has been
a very cordial support from the legal members of internal interests upon the Senate. It is contended by the President that collegiate representatives must be more sympathetic to us than outsiders. Again that betrays a complete ignorance of the working of the University. It is obvious to all of us who have actual knowledge that collegiate members cannot be and are not, sympathetic to a system of examination to which they are thoroughly opposed, which in a large measure cuts into their preserves, and which they have throughout and consistently opposed in the past. There is no possibility of blinking one's eyes to that fact.
I wish to go on to the third point—the independence of the University from the control of grant-giving bodies. The President of the Board minimised the effect of the increased representation of the Crown and the London County Council. I have been very unsuccessful in finding out how the Crown representatives on the Senate are actually selected. It seems to be wrapped in mystery. The representation of the Crown, however, cannot be a nugatory thing, for if it were, the Government would not press it so hotly. The Crown and the municipalities, I emphasise again, are to have four times as large a representation on the new governing body in comparison with their representation on the present governing body. I would again refer to the strongly expressed opinion of the representatives of the Empire universities at Cambridge last year. Speaker after speaker at that congress, when the question of State aid to universities was debated, rose to say that. independence was so precious a quality that it was better to be poor and independent than to be rich and ruled. That independence is the principle which I think is so gravely menaced by this Bill. It is the first time so large a measure of representation of grant-giving bodies has been suggested for any university. It is entirely a wrong principle, and in that opinion I am supported by this large body of representatives from overseas. It is a wrong principle that granting money should mean assuming control over educational policy.

Lord E. PERCY:: Hear, hear

Dr. LITTLE: The Noble Lord is providing machinery which really nullifies the wish he appears to express. The grant which is now given by the grant giving bodies to the University constitutes little more than a third of the revenues of the University. But all the moneys from whatever source coming to the University will be under the influence and control of the new Council, so that the grant-giving bodies, through their representatives, will be controlling not only the allocation of the grants which come from themselves, but also of the much larger funds of the University coming from other quarters. And it is here that we of the external side feel the menace to be so serious to the retention of this side which now lives upon this earned revenue. It is quite useless to express sympathy for an object, and to devise machinery which must destroy that object. The representation proposed is so meagre that it cannot secure the defence of those interests, more particularly in face of the encroachment that is proposed, by which the new Council will deal with funds which are not contributed by grant-giving bodies.
I want to disabuse the House of any suggestion that the University is in a backwater or is not willing to accept any changes which may be desirable, or that it is oblivious of what is happening outside. To suggest that the University is not alive to progress is about as absurd a suggestion as could be made. The progress that has been made with new ideas in the University has been its most conspicuous quality. It has always been in the forefront of change for the better in education, in social politics and in every other way. It has never been backward in accepting reform when there has been necessity or advantage of change within its own body. But we contend that it is better to have changes effected by agreement within the University than to force solutions from outside upon a body essentially hostile to them. That the body is hostile, I think cannot be denied. The position was very ably set forth at the meeting which I organised in this House and which was addressed by Lord Justice Atkin, by Sir William Collins, who was three times Vice Chancellor of the University, and by Professor Loney, Chairman of Convocation. There was general agreement that these changes could be better effected
by those who have internal knowledge than by those without such knowledge. A resolution to that effect was passed unanimously by the Senate immediately after the Report of the Departmental Committee was published. We have proved our competence to make reforms. We have, for example, accepted the Imperial College on terms mutually advantageous to the college and the University, whereas the solution of the difficulties re that college suggested by the Haldane Commission was so ludicrous that it was never even considered. The college and the University turned it down immediately. Is there anything more sacrosanct in the present suggestions for the government of our schools? It is in the interests of freedom, the freedom of the University, the freedom of the schools of the University, and the freedom of the students, especially of external students, that I beg to move that the House reject the Bill.

Captain FAIRFAX: I beg to second the Amendment.
I find myself in a difficult position, because I have been asked at very short notice to second the Motion for rejection owing to the unavoidable absence of the hon. and learned Member for the Altrincham Division of Cheshire (Mr. Atkinson), who was to have seconded it. I have not the detailed and expert knowledge of this very complicated subject which is required to deal with a Bill of this character and I propose, therefore, to be very brief. I have long taken an interest in this question. As a graduate of Oxford I have a natural sympathy with all university questions. Moreover, having Overseas connections, I am particularly interested in the question from the point of view of London University as being specially in a position to eater for overseas students. I attended the special meeting which my hon. Friend the member for London University (Dr. Little) organised in this House, which was addressed by Lord Justice Atkin, Sir William Collins, who was three times Vice Chancellor, and by Professor Loney. I listened with great interest to the arguments of those learned gentlemen and certainly they made out a very considerable case for the retention of the present constitution of the university. I was particularly moved by the argument on the question of the external students, and I feel that the House might well give further consideration to this Bill. If the Bill is
not to be rejected, I hope that Amendments will be moved in Committee to secure that it shall more nearly represent the interests of those concerned. 1 cannot help feeling that there is a very strong argument against this Bill in the fact that the hon. Member who has moved its rejection fought his election in the representation of the university on this question. It seems to me that if those most concerned in that election, the graduates of the university, considered my hon. Friend their fitting representative, this Bill, the rejection of which he moves, should not receive a Second Reading.

Sir ALFRED HOPKINSON: I recognise how important it is that the questions involved in this Bill should be settled at the earliest possible date in the interest of the University of London. I do not, therefore, propose to go into any questions of detail, which can be more properly discussed upstairs; but there are two points of principle in regard to which special note should be taken of what has fallen from the representative of the Government in presenting the Bill. The first point is in regard to the declaration he made in regard to external students. I note with great satisfaction the fact. that the policy of the Government as plainly declared to-day, is definitely in favour of maintaining the rights and the position of the external students. Looking back at the history of the younger universities, which I have the honour to represent, I am certain that everyone of those universities owes much to the good work done by the old University of London in recognising the work done by students of various colleges which could not grant degrees, and also in encouraging systematic private study. And even now there are numbers of earnest. and industrious young men and young women who wish to qualify themselves for the teaching and other professions who have not the opportunity, in spite of the great increase in university facilities, of obtaining recognition of their work without the facilities for external students afforded by the University of London. More than that, there are many who find that they are better able, it may be under some kind of personal advice without formal university instruction to qualify themselves in certain subjects. That may not be a general experience, but many such cases occur. Therefore, we gladly take note of the declaration
that it is not the policy of the Government to prejudice the position of the external students of the University of London.
The next point on which we have had a very definite declaration to-day is, that there is no intention to attempt to set up governmental control over any of the universities of this country. I happened to be called upon the other day to introduce the subject of the relation of the universities to the State at the Congress of Empire Universities—to which allusion has been made—and which met at Cambridge last summer. The principle of freedom of the universities from State control was universally accepted. Many years ago, when the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, this principle was distinctly recognised by him when the universities received increased grants from the Exchequer. It was acknowledged that no Government Department was to control the mode in which those grants could be spent beyond merely saying that they were to be used for the proper development of the work of each university that received them. At one time there was a risk, a probability even of interference, but I trust that danger no longer threatens. I am glad to note that the principle has been recognised to-day in express language by the President of the Board of Education. We welcome those two declarations.
As one who has been associated with the administration of the largest of our new universities I should like to add my testimony as to the great value of the work done in the administration of our universities in the great cities by men engaged in business and professional work who are not members of the teaching staffs or necessarily graduates of the university. That business element has been vital to the development of the new universities. The council deal not only with matters relating to finance and general policy, but also make appointments though the initiation of academic questions rests with the Senate, which consists of the professional staff and with the boards of the Faculties. The London University is very different. There is nothing like it anywhere else, and the analogies taken from other universities may he misleading. I hope the question
will be reconsidered as to whether it is not possible to provide this very useful business element in nomination by various outside bodies. You do not want to make the body too big; but I think the point should be carefully considered as to whether it is not better to maintain the representation of certain learned societies and other bodies whose members may have special knowledge.
Allusion has been made to the position of the colleges which teach theology. I should like to add my testimony to the value, in universities which are quite unsectarian and quite free from any ecclesiastical control, of the theological faculties and theological teaching. In Manchester, for example, in spite of considerable opposition, a theological faculty was established years ago. There is, I believe, no more harmonious faculty in the university. So far from introducing any unpleasant controversies, it has been undoubtedly a most useful element in university life. It is satisfactory to hear that the position of the theological colleges and faculties is going to receive fair consideration and some amendment made in the Bill to secure their position. Finally, on the question of the interference in the affairs of universities by those who in the modern universities are nominated by the Government. We have representatives appointed by the Lord President on the governing bodies. They are few in number, and usually persons of distinction whose presence is welcomed, as most, if not all, have already shown interest in the university, and are known to be in touch with its members. They do not really form a separate and distinct element in it, and have never attempted to press for increased Government control. So far as their action is concerned, we should not know which members are thus nominated or which are appointed in other ways. While noting with satisfaction declarations made to-day, and recognising that the Bill must pass its Second Reading promptly, we may reserve for consideration in Committee various points upon which Amendments might advantageously be adopted.

Major Sir RICHARD BARNETT: Had the Prime Minister been in the House at the moment I should have been tempted in my few observations in opposition to
the Second Reading of this Bill to remind him of the dicta of two of his predecessors. One is, that "England is saved by the Parliamentary vacations," and the other. "Why cannot you leave it alone?" No Bill ever introduced in this House is a better illustration of the wisdom of these two maxims than the Bill which has been introduced this afternoon. I cannot pretend to speak as a representative of the London University—I am a graduate of one of the older Universities—but I claim to speak as a London Member in whose constituency the largest college of the University of London is situated. We are all proud of the London University. During the comparative peace of the last few years, since the Haldane Commission reported, the number of internal students of the London University has been trebled, and the number of external students has been doubled. That is a magnificent result. I suggest that the University under its present system of government, whatever its faults, is doing exceedingly well, and the suggestion I am going to make is that it is far better to leave the London University- to reform itself. It is quite ready to do it. The first thing that the University did when the Departmental Committee reported was to constitute a strong committee to consider the recommendations, and see how far they could be carried into effect. Up to the present moment that committee has made considerable progress in its work. It has been asserted here, and it has not been contradicted, that the graduates and teachers of the London University are for the most part against the Bill.

Lord E. PERCY: Yes, I contradict that.

Sir R. BARNETT: I do not think the Noble Lord contradicts it with full knowledge. We had the Report of the Haldane Commission in 1913, and on the 15th September, 1924, the Labour Government announced that it was going to appoint a Departmental Committee. No one can blame the Labour Government, because the Report was that of the Lord Chancellor of the Labour Government. Nor can anyone blame the Labour Government because on the day it went out of office it announced the names of this Committee. The Committee reported in 1924. Does its Report confirm that of the Haldane Commission? Nothing of
the sort. it is largely contradictory. If the Noble Lord had found unanimity between the findings of the Haldane Commission and the Departmental Committee, I could understand my Noble Friend saying that as this is a matter above politics and party he would accept the second Report, which enforced the report of the Haldane Commission, and do his best to give effect to it. But that is not the case. You have an entirely new programme. The Departmental Committee differs from the Haldane Commission in many vital points.
Reference has also been made to the deputation which came to this House. It was a very important deputation and it met a large number of London Members. One member of the deputation has already been mentioned this afternoon. He was a past Member of this House, very eminent in his own profession, the chairman for some considerable time of the London County Council, and a man so distinguished, Mr. Speaker, that 20 years ago his name was freely discussed as a possible occupant of the Chair you fill with such distinction. That well know representative of the University of London was a Liberal in politics. I am sorry not to see the Liberal party more strongly represented here to-day. That distinguished Liberal came down here to voice the views of the deputation. From the very beginning, he told us, the graduates and the teaching staff of the university were dead against these proposals. They were not to be allowed to reform their own house. They wanted to be allowed to carry out what they thought good and practicable in the Report of the Departmental Committee, and they did not want to have the scheme of the Government foisted upon them. I submit, with all deference to the Noble Lord, the President of the Board of Education, that that is what Parliament is doing, this House is foisting upon the university a new constitution which it does not want.
The hon. and gallant Member for Norwich (Captain Fairfax) made a very good point when he referred to the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill as being himself a standing proof that the graduates of London University do not want the Report of the Haldane Commission; and they do not want the
Report of the Departmental Committee either. It is an open secret that the hon. Member, who was in many other ways fitted to represent a constituency in this House, is here mainly because as a graduate of the University of London he offered a stubborn opposition to the scheme. He defeated a member of my own party. The Haldane Commission scheme is cognate in many respects to that of to-day.

Lord E. PERCY: It is totally different.

Sir R. BARNETT: If my Noble Friend will bring a dialectic mind to bear on this point, he will realise that two things can be widely different and yet very much the same. What distinguishes this scheme, as I understand it—I do not understand the details of it as well as my Noble Friend—from the recommendation of the Haldane Commission, is that there is an entirely different creation of the Senate. But it is the same sort of bureaucratic Senate that is in the Haldane Report. It is the same sort, although it is not the same. It is a different scheme, but the root idea of the Haldane Commission and the root idea of the Departmental Committee are the same. My Noble Friend seems to think that it is impossible for the Report of the Haldane Commission and that of the Departmental Committee to be on different lines and yet to be essentially the same. I am sorry that I cannot make that clear to the right hon. Gentleman. Both schemes aim at a bureaucratic Senate, though the composition of the Senate would be quite different. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. I have no doubt that my Noble Friend would say that it would have been a disaster to the university to have carried out the Haldane Commission's Report. I put the question to him—does he think that or not? Very wisely he is silent and will not disclose his view.
My Noble Friend thinks it would be a disaster to the university if legislative effect had been given to the Report of the Haldane Commission. The Report of the Departmental Committee is something very much nobler and sounder, and we in the House of Commons know very much better what is good for the graduates and teachers of the university than these people know themselves. That is the theory. I am not going to discuss the details, because I am against the thing,
root and branch and in principle. We ought to give the University of London an opportunity of reforming itself. It is trying to do it. It has not had much time yet to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. But it is doing it now. The University of London is entitled to point to its consistent record of growing numbers and the efficiency and suceess of its graduates all over the world, and is entitled to ask to be left alone and to be allowed to work out its own destinies in its own way.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I was a member of the Departmental Committee upon whose proposals this Bill is based, and un one fundamental proposal I was at variance with my colleagues and issued a Special Report on that one subject. The point has been raised to-day. The Departmental Committee proposed to establish a finance council with very large nominated and unrepresentative elements. The composition of that council I accepted, because in fact it was practically insisted upon by the University Grants Committee. But the Departmental Committee goes further than that, and enacts that in any issue where the two bodies are at variance the Senate is finally made subordinate to this finance council. That means in reality that the finance council is finally supreme, not only over finance, but also over educational policy. That appears to me to be a position of subordination in which no university ought to be placed. It is one which no other university in the Kingdom has accepted. It seems to introduce into the University of London a confusion, which will arise between two bodies of very nearly co-ordinate power. I am not going to follow that point, because I understood from the President of the Board of Education that in his view this issue could be determined by the Statutory Commission. If that is so, and if that can be made clear on the Committee stage, my only objection to these proposals will be met, and practically an agreed Bill will finally emerge. With all the other recommendations of the Committee I agreed, and for that reason I propose to support the Second Reading of the Bill.
In the case of the various criticisms which have been made, I propose to say
a few words as to one broad anxiety which appears to underlie the speeches of a good many Members of the House. That anxiety is that the new constitution of the Senate will pat the external interests of the university at an undue disadvantage. That was a point which I followed very carefully during the discussions in the Departmental Committee. I cannot see how, as a result of the recommendations of the Committee, the external interests will be in any greater danger than they are at present. As the Senate is at present composed there are 16 representatives of convocation and 16 representatives of the teachers. As the Senate will be composed in the future there will still be 16 representatives of convocation and 16 teachers; the two main bodies will still be identical in number as they always have been. The point which I noticed was made in the speech of the hon. Member for London University (Dr. Little) was this, that the representation of the colleges on the Senate was mainly of internal character, and that is the influence which will throw the balance of strength against the external representation. I do not know whether the hon. Member has forgotten the evidence that was given before us. Is he aware that this very proposal that the 16 convocation representatives, and the 16 teachers and the representation of colleges on the Senate was brought before us by the external council speaking for the external interests, and that it was put into the Report of the Departmental Committee on their recommendation? He has also said that the external representatives attach great importance to the tertium quid. Does he remember that it was the external council who proposed to us that it should be cut done by one-half? The lead was given to us by the very witnesses on whose behalf he now speaks.

Dr. LITTLE: It was not in any way contemplated when that Report was made that the Senate so constituted should not remain the supreme governing body. Upon the new Council the representation of external interests would be reduced to one-fifteenth, as compared with one-third upon the Senate sketched by the Report of the two councils.

Mr.LEES-SMITH: The hon. Member is not dealing with the bodies to which I have referred. He has objected to the elimination of the representation of the lawyers, surgeons and physicians from the Senate. His interjection refers to the Council. I am pointing out to him that it was the external council who first suggested that their representation should be cut down by one-half. He has pointed out that the presence of the collegiate representatives on the Senate gives an undue addition to external representation. That proposal of the Departmental Committee came from the external council itself.

Dr. LITTLE: The position is absolutely different. We should not so much mind this new Senate if it were a supreme body, but it is not a supreme body.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: This, then, I understand, means that if my Amendment were carried, we should have the support of the hon. Member for London University for this Bill.

Dr. LITTLE: That has been very freely suggested in the University. We do not entirely like the constitution suggested by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) but we should infinitely prefer it to that now proposed.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I think this discussion has brought forward a very important contribution to the subject. I had hoped that when I wrote this special Report it would obtain the support of the hon. Member for London University and the interests he represents. Had that been so, 1 think he would have spoken for a practically unanimous University. That is not the line which he followed, either in his speech or in his agitation outside the House. It is because he has not followed that line that he finds himself in the almost isolated position he occupies in this Debate. If the view he has stated be correct, then I think it is possible at a later stage, or in Committee discussion, that an agreed Bill might be passed. I do not propose to enter into any of the wider features of the Bill except to say that I shall give my support to the Bill.

1.0 P.M.

Mr. HILTON YOUNG: This Bill has met and received so large and so increasing a measure of support in this House that I shall not detain hon. Mem-
bears with any general defence of principles. Indeed, after the most convincing defence developed by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education at the beginning of the Debate, such an undertaking on my part would be mere impertinence. One or two observations, nevertheless, do fall to be made by one whose experience was that of the Chairman of the Committee responsible for the Departmental Report behind this Bill. I listened with great interest, although with real difficulty, to the arguments of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Sir R. Barnett). I disagree with the suggestion that the election of the hon. Member for London University (Dr. Little) was any condemnation of our Report. [An HON. MEMBER: "Of the Haldane Commission."] I am content with our Report. The Haldane Report was very different from our Report. Let me also enter a mild protest against the allegation that the Report of my Committee in any way seeks to impose a bureaucratic Senate on the university. The only change in the composition of the Senate proposed is one that will make it more representative of the strongest internal interests in the university. The Haldane Report, for which I have the greatest admiration as a contribution to the literature of university government, proceeds on lines that are not only different from the Report of my Committee, but almost directly contrary. It is quite apparent that there is only one solid difference of opinion that has arisen as to the recommendations of the Committee of which I was chairman. It is as to the financial council. It is necessary to distinguish as between questions affecting the composition of the council, and as to questions affecting its functions. The criticism that came from the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers) was, I think, based on a profound misconception. It was that the Government representatives would be, as it were, representatives of the taxpayers seeking to impose the policy on the university that would be different from the policy of the university. The speech of the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir A. Hopkinson) shows how little that danger is to be feared. The
purpose of the Government representatives is a different one. It is to bring to the services of the university a region of knowledge and experience that is not readily accessible in academic circles.
I think it will be admitted that this question of the composition of the council is not of the essence of the matter. On the other hand, the question of the functions of the council, which has been dealt with by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith)—who was a member of the Committee—is of the essence of matter. I do not speak on behalf of the Committee because that is functus officio, but, speaking on my own behalf, it is, in my opinion, of the essence of the scheme prepared by the Committee that the functions of the council should be of the nature outlined by the Committee and that the decisions of the council in matters of finance should not be subject to reference to the Senate. The reason is this. The reformed Senate which we recommend, with 48 members, is not a body capable of exercising that executive financial control. In order to get such a body, you erect this council, and if you erect the council subject to the Senate and compel it to send in its decisions for discussion by the Senate you sacrifice the whole practical benefit of the scheme of reform. I should negative the proposition of the hon. Member for Keighley that the finance council would be absolute in the University. That would not be the case because such supremacy in all matters of academic interest is reserved for the Senate, and the sphere of action of the council is strictly limited to financial propositions. It has big powers, but it has not the power to control academic policy. In answer to the rhetorical question asked by the hon. Member for Keighley, as to whether the Statutory Commission would be free to reconsider this question of the functions of the council, speaking solely on my own behalf as one acquainted in detail with the nature of the Report and the proceedings of the Committee, I should say that the Statutory Commission would not be free to reconsider that aspect of the matter if it accepts in essence the general outline of the scheme of the Committee.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (MONEY).

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session making further provision with respect to the University of London, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of all expenses incurred in the execution of the said Act by the Commissioners appointed thereunder up to an amount approved by the Treasury, including such remuneration as the Treasury may determine to be payable to persons employed by the said Commissioners."—[King's Recommendation signified.]—[Lord E. Percy.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF NORTHERN RELAND BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
A little explanation is required in connection with this Bill which is to amend the law in respect of the salaries and pensions of persons hereafter appointed as Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Northern Ireland. There are only three short Clauses in the Bill. The first is in connection with the salaries and pensions of future Judges and the effect of it will be a saving of £2,500 a year. The second Clause deals with the power to direct trials without a jury in certain matters requiring prolonged examination either of documents or accounts or prolonged scientific investigation or legal investigation. The third Clause is an explanation of the powers of the Parliament in Northern Ireland to legislate in respect of jurors and juries. Such powers will relate to the preparation and revision of the jury lists and the qualification, selection, summoning and attendance of jurors. The Bill is of purely local interest, and I understand there is no oppo-
sition to it. It does not really concern this country but Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Captain Hacking.]

Orders of the Day — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (No. 2) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Captain HACKING: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill seeks to amend Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1925. This particular Subsection at present provides that a workman who meets with an accident when he is under 21 years of age may apply for an increase in the amount of his compensation on the basis of what he would have been earning on the date of the review had he remained uninjured. There were two provisos in that connection. The first was that the review should take place not less than six months after the accident, and the second that it should take place before the man bad reached the age of 21. The object of that provision is quite clear, namely, that a youth who was injured should have the opportunity of review in order that, when he reached his full earning capacity, he should have his weekly compensation increased on the basis of the adult standard. It has been represented to the Home Secretary by deputation and other- wise that this two-fold requirement has created certain hardships. I will illustrate the effect of the Sub-section as it now stands. If a youth is injured before he reaches 21—within five months of reaching 21—it is impossible for him to comply with both provisions. He cannot have a review for six months after his injury; he then is over 21 years of age. The second proviso says he must have a review immediately he reaches 21, and not later. The object of this Bill is to do away with that hardship, which makes it impossible for men of a certain age to get that review which it is necessary they should have in their own interest.
This Bill effects the remedy. I may add that the National Confederation of
Employers' Organisations and the General Council of the Trade Union Congress were consulted during the summer months, and both bodies agree with the proposal contained in this Bill, and they suggest that immediate legislation should be effected in the terms of this Bill. There is a certain amount of urgency in this Bill, because of the hardships which are being created under the old Section, and I would suggest to the House that, if it meets with their approval, but not otherwise, we should take all the stages of this Bill at once, although, of course, I do not intend to press that upon the House if there is any objection to it at all. There is nothing in the Bill except the correction of this hardship, and I hope the House at any rate will give it a Second Reading now, and that I may be allowed to take all stages immediately.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: It is not my purpose to speak on the objects of the Measure, but I want to say, on behalf of my colleagues and myself on this side, that we welcome this Bill and trust that it will be possible for the House to, pass the Measure through all its stages to-day The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has moved the Second Reading has explained the difficulties that have arisen in connection with the administration of the last Workmen-s Compensation Act. As a matter of fact, the difficulties have been not only in connection with the working of trade union administration in this connection, but the solicitors and the courts of the land who have had to deal with this Section have found themselves in difficult positions, and I have no hesitation at all in saying, from my knowledge of the provisions of the last Workmen's Compensation Act and of the proposals now before the House, that these proposals will undoubtedly remove hardships, not in a few cases, but really in very many cases within my own ken. I, therefore, support the Bill, and trust that we shall be able to pass it through all its stages to-day.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—(Captain Harking.)

Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — HORTICULTURAL PRODUCE (SALES ON COMMISSION) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Duty of salesman to record and deliver particulars of sales.)

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I beg to move, in page 1, line 24, after the word "paid," to insert the words "or payable."
This is only a drafting Amendment. It is the first of a series of Amendments, which are all of small importance, and have been agreed to by the National Farmers' Union, on the one hand, and the National Federation of Fruit and Potato Trades Associations, on the other. Unless hon. Members want any information on any detailed point, I think I really need not trouble the Committee with explanations.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 2, line 14, at the end, insert the words
Provided that in any proceedings under this Section if the defendant proves to the satisfaction of the Court that the offence was due to a bona fide mistake or accident, in spite of all reasonable precautions being taken and all due diligence exercised by the defendant to prevent the occurrence of such offence, or the offence was due to the action of some person over whom the defendant had no control, the defendant shall be discharged from the prosecution.

In page 2, line 17, after the word "salesman," insert the words "before the sale."—(Mr. Guinness.)

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2 (Inspection of books, etc.), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Interpretation.)

Amendment made: In page 2, line 39, leave out from the word "unless" to the end of the Sub-section, and insert instead thereof the words
at or before the sale of the produce

(a) the salesman has received from the owner or consignor a direction in writing to the contrary; or
(b) the owner or consignor and the salesman have entered into an agreement in writing to the contrary;
2152
and any such agreement may apply either to a particular consignment or generally to all such consignments as may be specified in the agreement."—[Mr. Guinness.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 (Short title and extent), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next (22nd November).

Orders of the Day — NAVAL RESERVE (OFFICERS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The object of this Bill is to remove and anomaly under which officers of the Royal Naval Reserve have suffered up till now, as distinct from the officers of the other Reserve forces of the Crown. It is in order to enable Royal Naval Reserve officers disabled by wounds, injuries or disease to receive the same disability rates as other Reserve officers, and to enable widows and children and, in certain cases, the dependent relatives of such officers as may be killed in action to receive the same benefits as are payable in the case of children and dependants of officers of the Royal Navy killed in action. I do not think that there is any opposition to the Bill, and I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.

Mr. AMMON: Before this Bill passes its Second Reading, and perhaps further stages, there are two main points on which I would like some assurance. although it may be that I do not appreciate entirely the wording of the old Act and the proposed Amendment before the House. In the Act of 1863, Section 3, which it is proposed to amend, lays down that
If any such person is disabled or receives any hurt or wound in actual service, he shall be entitled to the same allowance or pension in respect thereof as an officer of the Royal Navy of corresponding rank would be entitled to under similar circumstances; and if any such person is killed in action, or dies from any wound or accident resulting from the performance of his duties, his widow (if any) shall be entitled to the same pension as the widow of an
officer of the Royal Navy of corresponding rank would he entitled to under similar circumstances.
I am under the impression that the Act of 1863, not having been repealed, would still govern the conditions of service of both Naval and Naval Reserve officers in this respect, and that the standard for these rates is the rate of remuneration of officers in the Royal Navy, and that it would apply equally to-day as when the Act was passed. What seems a very vital and serious alteration is that, as far as I read the Amendment, it changes some words and leaves the amount of compensation or gratuity to be at the discretion of the Admiralty. It seems to remove the standard laid clown here, that standard being the rate of pay of officers of corresponding rank in the Royal Navy. If that standard be removed, it seems that there is no safeguard for the Reserve officer who may, in certain eventualities, take service in the Royal Navy, and that his pension would suffer in the event of disability. It seems that under the proposed Amendment, if that contingency should arise, his pension would be determined as the Admiralty thought proper, without any definite standard being laid down to guide them, and he might be worse off than under the present arrangement. We, on this side, ask for an assurance on those lines, because, reading the original Act of 1863 and the proposed Amendment, it is difficult to see what safeguard there is, and there certainly does seem to be the removal of the standard laid down in the original Act.

Mr. DAVIDSON: I think I can give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman. This Bill does not interfere or alter the rights of the Royal Naval Reserve Officer, as far as wounds in action or death are concerned. This is to bring him into the disablement category on post-War terms, which, up to now, he has not enjoyed with the officers of other reserve forces of the Crown. Up to now, the Act of 1863, which does not deal with disablement, but does deal, as the hon. Gentleman said, with wounds in action or death, has applied, and the Amendment in this Bill is to enable the Royal Naval Reserve Officer to have his rights extended to a pension for disablement in the same way as the officers of the other reserve forces.

Mr. AMMON: Under the proposed Amendment, will the officer still be entitled to a pension equivalent to the equivalent rank held by an officer in the Royal Navy?

Mr. DAVIDSON: Certainly.

Mr. MARCH: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question arising out of this? I happen to be rather closely associated with an officer who is at present in one of the Government institutions, he. having, through service abroad, become mentally defective, and has been so for several years. In the event of this man passing away, as the result of disability through services rendered to his country for a number of years, will his widow be entitled to any superannuation, as is laid down here, as if he had died through wounds?

Mr. DAVIDSON: It is difficult for me to answer that question offhand, because I do not know whether the case which the hon. Member has in mind is that of an officer of the Royal Navy, or an officer of the Mercantile, Marine.

Mr. MARCH: He was an officer of the Royal Navy.

Mr. DAVIDSON: This Bill does not apply to them, but if the hon. Member will bring before me the case he has in mind, I will inquire into it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill." —[Mr. Davidson.]

Mr. AMMON: There will be no objection on this side to the Committee stage, on the understanding, as I gather from the hon. Member, that there is no damnifying of the position of the officer, and that the equivalent rank in the Royal Navy applies.

Mr. DAVIDSON: Yes, Sir.

Mr. AMMON: Then we shall be very glad to allow the Committee stage to proceed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

Ordered,
That the Lords Message (9th November] communicating the Resolution, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills of the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, be now considered."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Resolved, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope) adjourned the House with-out Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at Twenty - eight Minutes before Two o'Clock until Monday next (22nd November).